989 F.3d 418
6th Cir.2021Background
- John Doe, a Michigan State University (MSU) medical student, was accused in 2018 by two classmates (Roe 1 and Roe 2) of sexual assault based on incidents in April 2016. An external investigator (Kroll) concluded the allegations were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- MSU imposed an interim suspension and conducted internal proceedings that culminated in a three-day in-person “Baum” hearing before a Resolution Officer (an administrative law judge) after this court’s Doe v. Baum decision required in‑person cross‑examination where credibility is central.
- At the hearing Doe testified and, through counsel, cross‑examined both complainants; the RO allowed Roe 1 to decline to answer an unspecified number of questions on cross‑examination.
- After the RO found DOE violated the Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy, Doe was dismissed from the College of Human Medicine and sued MSU and individual officials alleging due process, Equal Protection, and Title IX violations.
- The district court denied Doe leave to file a second amended complaint (finding the motion untimely and futile) and granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing Doe’s due process claim. Doe appealed only the amendment and due process rulings.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: Doe waived the timeliness challenge on appeal; amendment was futile; and Doe received constitutionally adequate process (three‑day in‑person hearing with cross‑examination), so no due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doe) | Defendant's Argument (MSU & officials) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint | Doe sought to add specific examples of questions Roe 1 refused to answer and allege MSU withheld the hearing transcript; argued amendment was timely and necessary | MSU argued the facts were known earlier (untimely) and the proposed amendments would not cure the pleading defects (futile) | Affirmed: Doe waived timeliness on appeal; district court did not abuse discretion and amendment would be futile because added facts would not state a viable due process claim |
| Whether MSU’s hearing procedures violated Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by permitting a complainant to refuse to answer some cross‑examination questions | Doe argued the RO’s allowance for Roe 1 to decline answering certain questions prevented constitutionally required cross‑examination under Baum and Mathews balancing | MSU argued Doe received robust due process: multi‑day in‑person hearing, in‑person cross‑examination before a neutral factfinder, access to investigative report, and no transcript was withheld on request | Affirmed: No due process violation—Baum requires some in‑person cross‑examination but not unfettered questioning; the three‑day hearing and cross‑examination satisfied Mathews balancing and Baum’s twin aims |
| Whether MSU’s alleged withholding of the Baum hearing transcript denied Doe evidence required by due process | Doe contended lack of transcript prevented him from pleading specifics about unanswered questions and showed withheld evidence | MSU noted Doe and his counsel attended the hearing, never requested a transcript, and MSU provided the investigative file (Kroll report) | Held: Doe did not plausibly allege MSU withheld evidence; transcript claim was not adequately pled in the operative complaint and would not save the due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (when credibility is central, due process requires some in‑person cross‑examination)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (Mathews balancing; cross‑examination required where deprivation is severe and credibility is at issue)
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (university must provide accused the evidence used to adjudicate his claim)
- Doe v. Cummins, [citation="662 F. App'x 437"] (6th Cir. 2016) (limited cross‑examination can satisfy due process where credibility is at issue)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three‑part test for required procedural protections)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (more serious educational deprivations may require more formal procedures)